I know @ScienceMarchDC’s history gives plenty of reason for paranoia, but this isn't actually M4S saying they’ll give e-mails to 3rd partieshttps://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/852391765151813633 …
-
I don’t, fair enough. But it’s about what the GMU social scientists say in the original, not what M4S says.
How did journalist know to approach GMU? If @ScienceMarchDC understood research ethics, they would have headed off this #scicomm disaster
-
-
I won’t pretend to know what actually happened. However, M4S’s quotes in the article make no mention of anything inappropriate …
-
… and if, as the clarification indicates, the GMU team never asked for e-mails, then no one actually asked M4S for anything inappropriate!
-
So … how can M4S be cavalier about an unethical request that wasn’t made, and that M4S doesn’t mention?
-
And anyway, if we want social scientists working with M4S, doesn’t the process of starting that look like what M4S describes in the article?
-
I am ALL FOR holding M4S accountable for its every organizational fuckup, but I don’t think this is one of them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.